Too many to count.I'm a big fan of Sean Connery and I like Connery's first four movies very much--they're each unique within the series and set the standard for the films that would follow.But I don't like You Only Live Twice or Diamonds Are Forever.They're little more than parodies of the Bond series and could never have been used to begin the series.Although they each have great scores and cinematography,their screenplays meander and they're built around gadgets and special effects.There are no characters of interest in either movie.These feature lazy plotting with unfortunate attempts at comedy.It's not too surprising that Connery just walks through them.These two are the spiritual precursors of the Roger Moore's more dire movies and that's too bad.Charlie Feldman's all-star 007 spoofCasino Royale(1967),has more entertainment value than either one of them--and better looking women,too.
Then there are Roger Moore's movies.I like Roger very much--especially as Simon Templar,in my opinion,his greatest role.That said,I dislike most of Roger's Bond films.I don't hold Roger responsible.This is not his fault, because the general quality of most of his films' screenplays isn't very high.Roger came along when EON decided to turn the Bonds into "family films" so as a result there are plenty of car chases,explosions,double-taking pigeons,pratfalls,ridiculous supporting characters, and all too often,uninteresting villains--generally with relatively undefined schemes.Also there are too many gadgets on display--it's almost as if the films are built around them,and that's wrong.
Of Roger's films,I like For Your Eyes Only--it's his best performance with the best and most Flemingesque storyline from among all 7 of his films.For the most part it's a real spy movie, and in this instance, Roger's not the gadget man.
Speaking of gadgets...I kind of like Moonraker--yes,it's absolutely outrageous and entirely unbelievable,but it has the courage of its convictions despite it's frequent insanity.Beautifully photographed in gorgeous surroundings and the dialogue,especially Drax's lines,is clever.I can't stand Jaws,however-he's the poor man's Oddjob.
And I sort of like The Spy Who Loved Me.It's the Die Another Day of it's time and it's something of a children's film, but Roger's good in it.
Then there's Octopussy.Some people can't see past 007 disguising himself as a clown,but I've always viewed that instance as a salute to Hitchcock's classic spy film The Man Who Knew Too Much--which features a spy who poses as a circus clown in one of its most significant moments.And the basic plot,with it's crazed Russian general and the wealthy criminal aiding him--once it's shorn of it's more extreme touches--has merit and as much believability as For Your Eyes Only.In this context,even the all-woman circus(with the best looking line of women since Thunderball) works.Roger also brings a surprisingly serious edge to portions of the preceedings, and that serves the film well.
Conversely,I don't like Live and Let Die,The Man With the Golden Gun or A View to a Kill.In theory these each had potential but they all have terrible screenplays and uninteresting characters with uninteresting schemes.A View to a Kill is easily the worst of the lot, but The Man With the Golden Gun almost matches it for overall lack of quality.I actually paid to see them but I'd have to be paid to see them again.
I think Timothy Dalton was a great James Bond--but he was betrayed by his material,which should have been of a higher standard.That observation aside,his films are both pretty good--although his screenplays could've each benefited from another revision.
As for Pierce Brosnan--in all honesty I didn't expect much from him when he got the part, but I was happily surprised with most of his films.I'm not a big fan of Tomorrow Never Dies(a pale echo of The Spy Who Loved Me) or Die Another Day(this really didn't need Jinx),but I do like his other two films-particularly The World Is Not Enough.Sophie Marceau's Elektra is one of the better villains in the later films.
Frankly,all of the James Bond films have their interesting moments and memorable characters,but in my opinion,they are not all equal in terms of overall quality.Some of the films are absolutely outstanding(From Russia With Love,Goldfinger,Thunderball),some are very good(For Your Eyes Only,Licence to Kill,The World Is Not Enough) and a number of them are,sadly, mediocre(Live and Let Die,Tomorrow Never Dies,Die Another Day.And a rare few of them are simply terrible(Diamonds Are Forever, A View to a Kill and The Man With the Golden Gun)--with them, it's difficult to imagine what the filmmakers were thinking when they were made.That their screenwriter(Richard Maibaum) often said that TMWTGG and AVTAK were the 2 worst films he ever wrote says something to me.
That said,all of the Bonds have their entertaining elements and performances, depending upon what each viewer desires.There really is something for every taste.
In the 60s, the basic outlook was that every man wanted to be James Bond and every woman wanted to be with James Bond.
Casino Royale and DC did this to me.
Biggest let down will have to be EON making a bond movie just to make it, the screenplay is poor. They needed bigger breaks, like LALD then TMWTGG or TB and YOLT. This only doesnt apply with TWINE and DAD lol
Ah, the summer of 1989. I spent it reading all of Fleming's books. I eagerly devoured all of LTK's pre-release press. I even stole the cardboard standee from the theatre where I worked. I was so excited to see a dark Bond movie. A tough Bond movie. Something more like Fleming's novels and less like the escapist fantasy of the Moore era.
Then the movie opened and I saw a wan, cheaply-made rehash of cliches from "Miami Vice"--a TV show that had just been canceled due in part to creative exhaustion with the whole drug-cartels theme. I saw production values that were rivaled by made-for-TV movies, a script with cringe-worthy dialogue and truly idiotic scenes (I actually asked aloud in the theatre "how did she smuggle a SHOTGUN into a bar?"). I saw a movie so creatively exhausted, everyone seemed to be phoning it in.
In idle moments I like to imagine going back in time, and telling that crestfallen teenager "17 years, dude. The movie you want to see will be made in 17 years."
Gonldeneye was the first Bond movie I got the chance to see in the theatres and i remember just instantly falling in love. From the very first scene to the very last. Afterwards I started my Bond collection (on VHS) and by the time TND came out I had about 13 of the Bond films. Needless to say I was incredibly pumped for TND. All i can remember was when I got home my mom asked why I was sulking. Thankfully when I arrived at the house I had 13 other incredible films to greet me.
Gonldeneye was the first Bond movie I got the chance to see in the theatres and i remember just instantly falling in love. From the very first scene to the very last. Afterwards I started my Bond collection (on VHS) and by the time TND came out I had about 13 of the Bond films. Needless to say I was incredibly pumped for TND. All i can remember was when I got home my mom asked why I was sulking. Thankfully when I arrived at the house I had 13 other incredible films to greet me.
I agree. TND was a let down for me as well. GE was the first Bond film I ever saw at the cinemas and I just loved it. I also liked TND but I didn't leave the theatre with the same kind of joy that I felt when I left after seeing GE.
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
Perhaps "let down" is too strong of a word, but I often get hung up on details like, "Wouldn't it have been great if they had done this?" And then I'm left with the disappointment of imagining what could have been a much better movie.
For me, the biggest example of this was reducing General Gogol's part to a small cameo at the end of TLD. If he was still the head of the KBG and Bond was ordered to assassinate him, I believe my appreciation of the movie would have increased tenfold.
Comments
Then there are Roger Moore's movies.I like Roger very much--especially as Simon Templar,in my opinion,his greatest role.That said,I dislike most of Roger's Bond films.I don't hold Roger responsible.This is not his fault, because the general quality of most of his films' screenplays isn't very high.Roger came along when EON decided to turn the Bonds into "family films" so as a result there are plenty of car chases,explosions,double-taking pigeons,pratfalls,ridiculous supporting characters, and all too often,uninteresting villains--generally with relatively undefined schemes.Also there are too many gadgets on display--it's almost as if the films are built around them,and that's wrong.
Of Roger's films,I like For Your Eyes Only--it's his best performance with the best and most Flemingesque storyline from among all 7 of his films.For the most part it's a real spy movie, and in this instance, Roger's not the gadget man.
Speaking of gadgets...I kind of like Moonraker--yes,it's absolutely outrageous and entirely unbelievable,but it has the courage of its convictions despite it's frequent insanity.Beautifully photographed in gorgeous surroundings and the dialogue,especially Drax's lines,is clever.I can't stand Jaws,however-he's the poor man's Oddjob.
And I sort of like The Spy Who Loved Me.It's the Die Another Day of it's time and it's something of a children's film, but Roger's good in it.
Then there's Octopussy.Some people can't see past 007 disguising himself as a clown,but I've always viewed that instance as a salute to Hitchcock's classic spy film The Man Who Knew Too Much--which features a spy who poses as a circus clown in one of its most significant moments.And the basic plot,with it's crazed Russian general and the wealthy criminal aiding him--once it's shorn of it's more extreme touches--has merit and as much believability as For Your Eyes Only.In this context,even the all-woman circus(with the best looking line of women since Thunderball) works.Roger also brings a surprisingly serious edge to portions of the preceedings, and that serves the film well.
Conversely,I don't like Live and Let Die,The Man With the Golden Gun or A View to a Kill.In theory these each had potential but they all have terrible screenplays and uninteresting characters with uninteresting schemes.A View to a Kill is easily the worst of the lot, but The Man With the Golden Gun almost matches it for overall lack of quality.I actually paid to see them but I'd have to be paid to see them again.
I think Timothy Dalton was a great James Bond--but he was betrayed by his material,which should have been of a higher standard.That observation aside,his films are both pretty good--although his screenplays could've each benefited from another revision.
As for Pierce Brosnan--in all honesty I didn't expect much from him when he got the part, but I was happily surprised with most of his films.I'm not a big fan of Tomorrow Never Dies(a pale echo of The Spy Who Loved Me) or Die Another Day(this really didn't need Jinx),but I do like his other two films-particularly The World Is Not Enough.Sophie Marceau's Elektra is one of the better villains in the later films.
Frankly,all of the James Bond films have their interesting moments and memorable characters,but in my opinion,they are not all equal in terms of overall quality.Some of the films are absolutely outstanding(From Russia With Love,Goldfinger,Thunderball),some are very good(For Your Eyes Only,Licence to Kill,The World Is Not Enough) and a number of them are,sadly, mediocre(Live and Let Die,Tomorrow Never Dies,Die Another Day.And a rare few of them are simply terrible(Diamonds Are Forever, A View to a Kill and The Man With the Golden Gun)--with them, it's difficult to imagine what the filmmakers were thinking when they were made.That their screenwriter(Richard Maibaum) often said that TMWTGG and AVTAK were the 2 worst films he ever wrote says something to me.
That said,all of the Bonds have their entertaining elements and performances, depending upon what each viewer desires.There really is something for every taste.
Casino Royale and DC did this to me.
Biggest let down will have to be EON making a bond movie just to make it, the screenplay is poor. They needed bigger breaks, like LALD then TMWTGG or TB and YOLT. This only doesnt apply with TWINE and DAD lol
"Better make that two."
Ah, the summer of 1989. I spent it reading all of Fleming's books. I eagerly devoured all of LTK's pre-release press. I even stole the cardboard standee from the theatre where I worked. I was so excited to see a dark Bond movie. A tough Bond movie. Something more like Fleming's novels and less like the escapist fantasy of the Moore era.
Then the movie opened and I saw a wan, cheaply-made rehash of cliches from "Miami Vice"--a TV show that had just been canceled due in part to creative exhaustion with the whole drug-cartels theme. I saw production values that were rivaled by made-for-TV movies, a script with cringe-worthy dialogue and truly idiotic scenes (I actually asked aloud in the theatre "how did she smuggle a SHOTGUN into a bar?"). I saw a movie so creatively exhausted, everyone seemed to be phoning it in.
In idle moments I like to imagine going back in time, and telling that crestfallen teenager "17 years, dude. The movie you want to see will be made in 17 years."
For me it has to be the total failure of DAF to properly follow up the tragic ending of OHMSS.
Mark
For me, the biggest example of this was reducing General Gogol's part to a small cameo at the end of TLD. If he was still the head of the KBG and Bond was ordered to assassinate him, I believe my appreciation of the movie would have increased tenfold.